My favorite part, other than the "Allan Barra (no relation)" line (WTF???), is when he writes this:

"Yogi Berra is, bar none, the winningest baseball player in history...Since the entire WAR concept is based on winning, how could a player who contributed to so much more winning be rated so much lower?"

Good job, Vinnie. Way to write an entire article about a topic that you don't understand. At. All.

I think he takes (like I take) exception to the name of the stat. It tries to tell you a player is worth "x" number of wins. In a sport where a pitcher can throw a no-hitter and lose. Where a batter can hit three homeruns in a game and lose. The stat is useful, but the name of the stat is moronic.

But that's a dumb thing to get caught up on. Wins in this sense is just an expression of runs added or saved (1 win ~ 10 runs). It would measure the same thing if you called it Runs Above Replacement, the numbers would just be higher.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/18/2014 11:28:00 AM (view original):But that's a dumb thing to get caught up on. Wins in this sense is just an expression of runs added or saved (1 win ~ 10 runs). It would measure the same thing if you called it Runs Above Replacement, the numbers would just be higher.

That's not incorrect, but calling it "wins" above replacement just adds fuel to the "these stats are created by number-crunchers who don't understand the game" fire. Individual players are worth runs - plus or minus. No individual player is ever worth a win.

It's a lame argument against WAR as a stat, but it's also idiotic for a segment of baseball analysts that are still sneered at by "baseball people" to make such a silly naming error.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/18/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):I was waiting for tec.

The 2nd line BL writes is "There are plenty of issues with WAR." So, you're wrong. This guy writes an entire article ripping WAR when he clearly doesn't have a grasp of what it means.

Yet, his (the guy who wrote the article) main point is dead on.

Using A SINGLE NUMBER to attempt to quantify a player's season, or a player's career, or to compare two players, is ridiculous.

Yes, WAR has it's flaws, and shouldn't be the only stat anyone ever looks that. Even BL hasn't denied that. But if you were to look at just one stat, WAR is one of the better ones, arguably the best, to look at. This moron wrote a story without considering the WAR is cumulative. WHY IS YAZ SO MUCH BETTER THAN DIMAGGIO?!? FLAWED!!! Maybe it's because Yaz played literally twice as many games.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/18/2014 12:12:00 PM (view original):I was waiting for tec.

The 2nd line BL writes is "There are plenty of issues with WAR." So, you're wrong. This guy writes an entire article ripping WAR when he clearly doesn't have a grasp of what it means.

Yet, his (the guy who wrote the article) main point is dead on.

Using A SINGLE NUMBER to attempt to quantify a player's season, or a player's career, or to compare two players, is ridiculous.

But his point isn't dead on.

He doesn't understand what WAR measures (he calls it, "how many wins a player adds or subtracts from his team, compared to just an average player at his position"), or that it's cumulative (ignores the fact that Mays and Yaz played a shitload more games than DiMaggio), or that team wins and world series titles are not relevant to an individual player's WAR total (see the entire Yogi Berra dumpster fire).